Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time

by AllTimeJeff 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • botchtowersociety

    And by the way, in the early 00s I spent thousands of hours debating the trinity online--from the same perspective as ATJ.

    LOL. Just found the old yahoo group.

  • designs

    Oh Buddhism then...

  • shamus100

    Who cares about the trinity? Let's have some coffee and talk about the REd Hot Chilli Peppers.

    Oh, I dont like them anymore. :'( But hey, if someone gave me a boatload of cash, I'd do just about anything... :D


    ........................... ...OUTLAW

  • shamus100

    Curious George is on - just saw it channel surfing.

    Did you know behind the cute act, he is a real jerk and is a drunk. It's true.

    Curious George is on - just saw it channel surfing.


    ........................... ...OUTLAW

  • AllTimeJeff

    Geez, I realy don't care. The Trinity is as the same as all other gods that all other religions claim. They believe it and insist on it whilst I don't believe it because the only proof for it is the (in this case) Trinitarian apologist. To believe, I simply have to buy your argument. Your words without proof are just words.

    But I really wish you well.

    I like bacon too.

  • shamus100

    Oooooh! Now they have screaming people on in a crashing airplane!

    I just so love human misery....

  • botchtowersociety

    Geez, I realy don't care.

    Are you talking to me? I am not insisting on you to believe anything. I am just showing what I found to be a good explanation, that worked for me, and reminiscing on my own spiritual journey. I just found stuff i posted on other forums a decade ago...we all evolve. Why do you have to be so hostile to people that just have a different belief system than you do?


    Let's have some coffee and talk about the REd Hot Chilli Peppers.

    New album out soon.


  • Terry

    Basic basic: An actually existing something is what it IS and not what it ISN'T. IDENTITY it is called.

    Those early writers had no facts about Jesus' identity BECAUSE the most influential writers NEVER MET HIM.

    Paul wrote his epistles first. Paul didn't "meet" Jesus on the road to Damascus. He was blinded and heard voices.

    He is a poor witness.

    The Gospels are likely hand-me-down word of mouth ideas that jelled and were passed off as actual Apostle writings for gravitas.

    SPECULATION is rife. ("Who do you say I am?")

    BOTH ideas are actually present in Scripture because nobody KNEW anthing beyond speculation!

    When Jesus isn't being presented as a tricky-word-game teacher who answers a question with a question (clearly a Socrates figure) the clever Rabbi

    is being a healer and confounder of religious Authority. In short: Jesus is loosely identified as all things to all people.

    To a pagan who already conceived of divine identity in terms of half God/half Man (Hercules), it was easy to apply that template to Jesus' story.

    To Jews raised on monotheism, Jesus was a messianic figure like David and a metaphorical "son of God".

    From paraphrased quotes, Jesus most often countered that with Son of MAN.

    By the time theologians entered the picture, LOOK AT ALL THE CRAP IDEAS they had to work with!


    2.Consorter with prostitutes




    6.Peripetetic Sophist

    7.Rabble rouser



    10.Smart ass

    And you expect any "Doctrine" to contain this sort of amalgam of ingredients and still be SENSIBLE???

Share this